Tesla Model S Plaid Fast Charging Results Amaze: Analysis

Crissa

Well-known member
First Name
Crissa
Joined
Jul 8, 2020
Messages
5,976
Reaction score
7,856
Location
Santa Cruz
Vehicles
2014 Zero S, 2013 Mazda 3
Country flag
Do you mean because of the EV kilometre tax? Thats because it is and has always been a communist police state run by a bunch of socialists that think debt is wealth, and society owes government for their good fortune.
Okay, but:
  • Taxes aren't communist
  • It's not communist to tax something (low emissions) that benefits everyone (that's the opposite)
  • Socialism doesn't have anything to do with debt (and certainly doesn't think it's wealth)
  • and... Yes, everyone owes the society and government for their livelihood. Government stabilizes currency, builds infrastructure, and create safety nets. It does the things private capital can't or won't.

-Crissa
Advertisement

 

JBee

Well-known member
First Name
JB
Joined
Nov 22, 2019
Messages
434
Reaction score
436
Location
6000
Vehicles
Cybertruck
Country flag
Okay coolio, but: ;)
  1. Taxes under MMT (modern monetary theory) are ONLY there to retard inflation NOT to provide or pay for products and services. Under MMT a sovereign state can issue as much currency as it wants to pay for any product and service it wants, provided the currency doesn't reduce in value because of it. See any previous, or ongoing bubble that is "bailed" out. Note the fed (also in oz, US, Uk etc that have fiat) which are a private company, issues federal currency to purchase gov bonds which in turn are our future tax obligations (aka debt we citizens owe in the future the gov is borrowing on now). BTW The ultimate capatilist is a communist, see China how to monopolises everything - Tesla is one of the only manufacturers that is allowed to operate without a mandated 50% government stake.
  2. Britannica says: "Communism, political and economic doctrine that aims to replace private property and a profit-based economy with public ownership and communal control of at least the major means of production (e.g., mines, mills, and factories) and the natural resources of a society. Communism is thus a form of socialism redistributing wealth." Hence my claim that "democratic" (another fallacy) governments overreach when they forcefully redistribute wealth. Overeach occurs when they fabricate "systems" out of "thin air" and enforce their use. (I don't have a problem with a carbon incentive btw)
  3. Regardless of the so called "freedoms" being peddled by most media and govs, the reality is you can only do what you can afford. The more they encroach on every facet of livlihoods the more power gets funnelled to the top. The best way to establish citizen control is thru enslavement to debt. "Slavery" has not disappeared just changed forms. Hence the issuing of debt notes aka fiat currency-which by the way is not payment its a debt note that forces others to pay for it with goods and services. All fiat currency is debt see 1)
  4. Note Governments make no products and provide no services of their own accord, they only "orchestrate" the private sector (read private people like you and me) to provide these. What school, hospital or military runs without "private citizens"? (Thats also why you're a non-civilian in the arm forces, you have given up your citizen rights, hence military tribunal etc otherwise you'd be open for murder convictions when going to war) Any gov is only an "Administration" that supposedly "enacts the will" of the people. The problem is when you vote you can only vote for WHO (sometimes), but not WHAT they do. If anything it should be a direct democracy (see CH) where citizens get to vote on bills directly instead a representative that does whatever they want "for you" subject to lobbying.
Anyways back to the gold mine for me. :cool:
 

Crissa

Well-known member
First Name
Crissa
Joined
Jul 8, 2020
Messages
5,976
Reaction score
7,856
Location
Santa Cruz
Vehicles
2014 Zero S, 2013 Mazda 3
Country flag
Okay coolio, but: ;)
Next time read your own notes before going on a rant, then.

  1. ...
  2. ... Hence my claim that "democratic" (another fallacy) governments overreach when they forcefully redistribute wealth. Overeach occurs when they fabricate "systems" out of "thin air" and enforce their use. (I don't have a problem with a carbon incentive btw)
  3. ... Hence the issuing of debt notes aka fiat currency-which by the way is not payment its a debt note that forces others to pay for it with goods and services. All fiat currency is debt see 1)
  4. Note Governments make no products and provide no services of their own accord, they only "orchestrate" the private sector (read private people like you and me) to provide these. What school, hospital or military runs without "private citizens"? (Thats also why you're a non-civilian in the arm forces, you have given up your citizen rights, hence military tribunal etc otherwise you'd be open for murder convictions when going to war) Any gov is only an "Administration" that supposedly "enacts the will" of the people. The problem is when you vote you can only vote for WHO (sometimes), but not WHAT they do. If anything it should be a direct democracy (see CH) where citizens get to vote on bills directly instead a representative that does whatever they want "for you" subject to lobbying.
2) That's why your statement is gibberish. It does not follow: Without redistribution, all currency (heck all commodities) could be cornered and the markets would cease to function.
3) This contradicts your point #1 and what you already said in point #3. It has no logical underpinning. There's more logic to say private property forces slavery (because without commons to derive sustenance, one must work for the owner of the property)
4) ...And this is really off the rails from your first and second points. 'Private capital' ≠ 'Private citizens'. Governments create whatever products and services their people direct them to. Parks, Police, Military, Aid, Regulation, infrastructure are all services and products. You have 'parties' and 'referendums' which you vote for. This is how to influence policy. Every democracy does it slightly differently, but most vote for 'people' because flat platforms cannot negotiate or contract with experts - and voters can't contract with experts on every detail, either. The representatives you select do that. It's not exact, but it at least moves along.

tl;dr? Don't just throw words without respecting their meaning. Actually connect the dots you clearly have.

-Crissa
 

JBee

Well-known member
First Name
JB
Joined
Nov 22, 2019
Messages
434
Reaction score
436
Location
6000
Vehicles
Cybertruck
Country flag
Next time read your own notes before going on a rant, then.
Sorry was on my phone watching the sunset so I couldn't refer to my notes :p

2) That's why your statement is gibberish. It does not follow: Without redistribution, all currency (heck all commodities) could be cornered and the markets would cease to function.
3) This contradicts your point #1 and what you already said in point #3. It has no logical underpinning. There's more logic to say private property forces slavery (because without commons to derive sustenance, one must work for the owner of the property)
4) ...And this is really off the rails from your first and second points. 'Private capital' ≠ 'Private citizens'. Governments create whatever products and services their people direct them to. Parks, Police, Military, Aid, Regulation, infrastructure are all services and products. You have 'parties' and 'referendums' which you vote for. This is how to influence policy. Every democracy does it slightly differently, but most vote for 'people' because flat platforms cannot negotiate or contract with experts - and voters can't contract with experts on every detail, either. The representatives you select do that. It's not exact, but it at least moves along.

tl;dr? Don't just throw words without respecting their meaning. Actually connect the dots you clearly have.

-Crissa
No worries. I'll try to explain better, but It could take a bit and I didn't really want to cram everything into an off-topic thread. But here goes.

I agree that we must first establish some definitions:
(please note the bold underlined, and the title of each item links to the source - I have added a "Note:" to explain my argument.)

wiki says:

A) Fiat currency - "Fiat money is a currency (a medium of exchange) established as money, often by government regulation. Fiat money does not have intrinsic value and does not have use value. It has value only because a government maintains its value, or because parties engaging in exchange agree on its value"

Note: Currency therefore only holds the value we agree to give it or by government mandate ie intervention. Unlike a representative currency, it does not have an associated value that it represents. (read up on how and why the Great Depression was turned around and how we got here)

B) Credit theories of money, also called debt theories of money, are monetary economic theories concerning the relationship between credit and money. Proponents of these theories, such as Alfred Mitchell-Innes, sometimes emphasize that money and credit/debt are the same thing, seen from different points of view.[1] Proponents assert that the essential nature of money is credit (debt), at least in eras where money is not backed by a commodity such as gold.

Note: We have a representative fiat currency in most world nations now. Money is therefore called a "debt note". Ie something that has to be paid back - but to who?

C) Debt is an obligation that requires one party, the debtor, to pay money or other agreed-upon value to another party, the creditor. Debt is a deferred payment, or series of payments, which differentiates it from an immediate purchase.

Note: For example: So if you have some debt notes and you go to the local farmer he will toil and sweat to give you produce (products and services) to get your debt notes, that he can then "trade" with somebody else, to repay the debt note by exchanging it in for goods and services he needs so he can continue to farm. In the end both you and the farmer pay tax on every transaction, which in turn is collected and used to pay interest for gov bonds.
Another example: If I met you in the street and I would tell you that I would give you 50C to jump in the air, you would probably say "get lost". If I said I'll pay $500, you'd ask "how high"?. ;) Currency "debt" is paid as taxes back to another private company the IRS who then distribute on behalf of the gov - for example to pay interest to companies that have bought their gov bonds, like the fed. Q. Why does the fed get to print money and spend it on bonds?

C) Captalism - "Capitalism is an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit. - Critics of capitalism argue that it concentrates power in the hands of a minority capitalist class that exists through the exploitation of the majority working class and their labor; prioritizes profit over social good, natural resources and the environment; is an engine of inequality, corruption and economic instabilities; and that many are not able to access its purported benefits and freedoms, such as freely investing. Supporters argue that it provides better products and innovation through competition, promotes pluralism and decentralization of power, disperses wealth to people who are able to invest in useful enterprises based on market demands, allows for a flexible incentive system where efficiency and sustainability are priorities to protect capital, creates strong economic growth, and yields productivity and prosperity that greatly benefit society."

Note: Capitalism and communism are not mutually exclusive of each other. One it biased towards economic activity, whilst the second mixes in some politics and socialism. So there's nothing stopping a "political" communist being a extraordinary "economic" capitalist.
Further the competitive nature of capitalism to ensure supply meets demand, creates a downwards spiral on affordability that exasperates the well being of the poor as they cannot compete. Example: Ethopia produces enough canola to feed it's own people, but it is sold to Europe as biofuel instead because it makes more coin. (I don't think this is good btw, I'm not an advocate of capitalism, communism or "free global markets", ownership or most of things construed by mankind and written about here - there are other better options, but they can't flourish with bipartisan politics ie we only get two ways on how we are "allowed" to think)

D) MMT - "Modern Monetary Theory or Modern Money Theory (MMT) is a heterodox[1] macroeconomic theory that describes currency as a public monopoly and unemployment as evidence that a currency monopolist is overly restricting the supply of the financial assets needed to pay taxes and satisfy savings desires.[2][3] MMT is opposed to mainstream understanding of macroeconomic theory, and has been criticized by many mainstream economists.[4][5][6] MMT says that governments create new money by using fiscal policy and that the primary risk once the economy reaches full employment is inflation, which can be addressed by gathering taxes to reduce the spending capacity of the private sector.[7] MMT is debated with active dialogues about its theoretical integrity,[8] the implications of the policy recommendations of its proponents, and the extent to which it is actually divergent from orthodox macroeconomics"

Note: Feel free to google if and when we got MMT. So if currency is debt, and the debt is owed to the gov, and the gov can issue debt notes for things it does not yet have, who "owns" everything that trades with it's currency? A monopoly ponzi scheme manipulated by political lobbying.
Further if a sovereign country can issue as much currency as it wants, so long it doesn't increase inflation, then why do its citizens need to pay tax? Can't it just print some more? (It does by making up and borrowing on gov bonds!)

E) Monopoly - "Monopolies are thus characterized by a lack of economic competition to produce the good or service, a lack of viable substitute goods, and the possibility of a high monopoly price well above the seller's marginal cost that leads to a high monopoly profit. "

Note: There is (normally) only one issuer of federal currency debt notes. A monopoly. That all in turn have to be paid, by exchange, in real goods and services plus interest to the bearer of the "bond". Apparently China mines 65% of bitcoins, that's why they are now clamping down on "alternate" currencies.

F) Government Bond - A government bond or sovereign bond is an instrument of indebtedness (a bond) issued by a national government to support government spending. It generally includes a commitment to pay periodic interest, called coupon payments, and to repay the face value on the maturity date.

"If a central bank purchases a government security, such as a bond or treasury bill, it increases the money supply because a Central Bank injects liquidity (cash) into the economy. Doing this lowers the government bond's yield. On the contrary, when a Central Bank is fighting against inflation then a Central Bank decreases the money supply. These actions of increasing or decreasing the amount of money in the banking system are called monetary policy.
If a central bank purchases a government security, such as a bond or treasury bill, it increases the money supply because a Central Bank injects liquidity (cash) into the economy. Doing this lowers the government bond's yield. On the contrary, when a Central Bank is fighting against inflation then a Central Bank decreases the money supply. These actions of increasing or decreasing the amount of money in the banking system are called monetary policy. "

Note: The holder of a government bond is entitled to interest being paid, commonly referred to as a yield. So not only is the issuer of the bond getting capital in the exchange, but the bond purchaser is getting interest. Then think about how the gov bond and fed are different entities, and how fractional-reserve banking works. Now have a look at usdebtclock and take note that most of this money that is owed is not yet in existence. Contracts, that stipulate IOUs for xyz, typically hold 10x as much value than the currency in circulation. Now add tax, medical care, pensions etc that are all unfunded future "debts". All adds up to a nice balloon. 🎈💣

In the mean time all trade and commodities, labour etc all operate in the "liquidity" realm of issued currency. That's why Quantitative Easing is so critical to keeping economies "afloat". Without currency to exchange there is no products and services, and hence the reason why we must sustain "exponential" growth so we can continue to "just" afford to pay interest on what we already borrowed from our own future. (the definition of ponzi btw)

I recommend reading at least some of the first parts of each wiki page for context, and then maybe if you can my previous post again. Thx

I'd like to end with a quote from John Adams 2nd US President:

All the perplexities, confusion and distress in America arise, not from defects in their Constitution or Confederation, not from want of honor or virtue, so much as from the downright ignorance of the nature of coin, credit and circulation.

–John Adams

I agree with him.
(and I'm aussie! :))

P.S. To give this post at least a Tesla taste, these are some of things EM has been tweeting about and saying on SNL. (bitcoin = fiat = hustle)
 
Last edited:

Crissa

Well-known member
First Name
Crissa
Joined
Jul 8, 2020
Messages
5,976
Reaction score
7,856
Location
Santa Cruz
Vehicles
2014 Zero S, 2013 Mazda 3
Country flag
There's a few faults with your connections...

First, currency:

The 'debt' in a fiat currency is that you, as the holder of the note, is the creditor. Not the debtor. It says on it that you are entitled to that amount of value at a bank for holding it.

The definition fragment you chose would also mean that all cryptocurrencies are also fiat. In that, they only are the value that holders agree upon.

The thing is... Fiat is really, really useful. There are more things to value than just piles of commodities. Potential value is a value. Esteem is a value. Reputation is a value. By using fiat instead of commodities, the economy is freed up to value these other non-tangible things without hitting a ceiling made of 'how much gold there is circulating'.

Second, Capitalism:

Communism doesn't conflict with Capitalism because one is a political system and the other is a system of markets. The opposite of Capitalism is Command, not Communism. And the opposite of Communism is Liberal Democracy, not Capitalism.

Every system starts to break down when it goes beyond where it works well. Capitalism breaks down in scales of time - since everything needs to be valued now, history and future don't get priced accordingly. It also breaks down at the edge of necessities: People need to eat and have shelter, and if they're not at that moment valuable, capital will discard or price them out.

In fact, markets have known edge cases that are problems: They require that a certain number of people be priced out. That's fine for caviar, but it's really bad if it applies to not starving. Or medicine. Or even accessing the market in the first place.

Capitalism also has the 'Tragedy of the Commons' as Capital flows to where it can extract wealth without regard to sustainability of the systems it's touching. That's why the importance of regulations and government free from undue influence of capital.

That's why redistribution must happen on the back side of Capitalism's coin. Because Capitalism is a game that can and will take all the resources and fluff off with them, leaving people and places behind. (And why regulatory capture is so pernicious).

And no, we don't need exponential growth. That's where inflation comes in.

Inflation exists because of demand, as measured by currency, increases. But it also exists to destroy hoarded wealth and debt. All those contracts you indicated? They become cheaper over time because of inflation.

But labor does not - because labor's price depends upon the price of food and shelter. Raise those, labor has to have a higher price. So laborers are generally unaffected by inflation as much as those who depend upon Capital for their livelihoods.

-Crissa
 

JBee

Well-known member
First Name
JB
Joined
Nov 22, 2019
Messages
434
Reaction score
436
Location
6000
Vehicles
Cybertruck
Country flag
There's a few faults with your connections...

First, currency:

The 'debt' in a fiat currency is that you, as the holder of the note, is the creditor. Not the debtor. It says on it that you are entitled to that amount of value at a bank for holding it.
Try going to a bank to convert it to some value. I dare you! :cool:
We no longer have a representative currency, that is why its called a fiat currency.


The definition fragment you chose would also mean that all cryptocurrencies are also fiat. In that, they only are the value that holders agree upon.

The thing is... Fiat is really, really useful. There are more things to value than just piles of commodities. Potential value is a value. Esteem is a value. Reputation is a value. By using fiat instead of commodities, the economy is freed up to value these other non-tangible things without hitting a ceiling made of 'how much gold there is circulating'.
Yes crypto is also fiat, (EM concludes the same) because it also doesn't represent a tangible intrinsic value.

.
muskbitcoinDec2020.png


As to if its "useful" or not was not the question. My point was that it wasn't many things people thought it was, in particular a store of value, a tangible form of compensation, or that taxes needed to paid to governments for them to afford government services, because they can do that with deficits instead. (aka borrowing from themselves).

As EM puts it fiat currency is only a unit of accounting. There are many ways to accomplish the same, and do it better, whilst avoiding some gov's monopoly influence over currency.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Goods &amp; services are the real economy, any form of money is simply the accounting thereof</p>&mdash; Elon Musk (@elonmusk) <a href="">June 5, 2021</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Second, Capitalism:

Communism doesn't conflict with Capitalism because one is a political system and the other is a system of markets. The opposite of Capitalism is Command, not Communism. And the opposite of Communism is Liberal Democracy, not Capitalism.

Every system starts to break down when it goes beyond where it works well. Capitalism breaks down in scales of time - since everything needs to be valued now, history and future don't get priced accordingly. It also breaks down at the edge of necessities: People need to eat and have shelter, and if they're not at that moment valuable, capital will discard or price them out.

In fact, markets have known edge cases that are problems: They require that a certain number of people be priced out. That's fine for caviar, but it's really bad if it applies to not starving. Or medicine. Or even accessing the market in the first place.

Capitalism also has the 'Tragedy of the Commons' as Capital flows to where it can extract wealth without regard to sustainability of the systems it's touching. That's why the importance of regulations and government free from undue influence of capital.

That's why redistribution must happen on the back side of Capitalism's coin. Because Capitalism is a game that can and will take all the resources and fluff off with them, leaving people and places behind. (And why regulatory capture is so pernicious).
I don't think what you said here disagrees with anything I said.

And no, we don't need exponential growth. That's where inflation comes in.
Maybe I should have defined that better. We definitely don't need or want exponential growth per se, but the capitalist machine pushing the fiat money market most certainly does, and will seize to exist without it.

We have exponential growth now because the markets use compounding variables to state growth. For example: if you have $100 and get paid 10% interest P.A. at the end of the first year you'd earn $10, at the end of the second year $11, third $12.10 etc etc. Likewise we have the same for inflation in the reverse direction.


Inflation exists because of demand, as measured by currency, increases. But it also exists to destroy hoarded wealth and debt. All those contracts you indicated? They become cheaper over time because of inflation.

But labor does not - because labor's price depends upon the price of food and shelter. Raise those, labor has to have a higher price. So laborers are generally unaffected by inflation as much as those who depend upon Capital for their livelihoods.

-Crissa
To be accurate inflation comes about if demand exceeds supply. Or in the case of most commoners if disposable income of fiat currency exceeds supply.

As alluded to before this is a core failure of the capitalist's principle in that it is unable to produce excess, all things must and will be accounted for, and impact economics in such a way that supply is always throttled by demand. That's why the US power is from demand, not from supply, and by manipulating and inflating fiat currency (as do most other nations).

This is a completely unnatural form of economic balancing and should be abolished.

Nature produces excess every day without asking for a reward in return. The sun on your face, the wind in your hair, the rain on your head. The cosmic scope of what is "given" compared to what we had to "pay for" is unfathomably vast. From biology, physics to sociology, relationships and faith, in the absence of absolute certainty.

In fact the "poor" people prove this because they can't afford capitalism mechanics, and must maintain themselves by natures provision, sustainably. Many times though they a fraught with mismanagement and external greed for fiat, which results in them heading for poverty instead. (Like Ethiopian canola)
We "developed nations" are in fact the same, in that our accounting does not include the embodied costs to those around us or the environment. The main reason we consider ourselves "better' is simply our mastery and accumulation of technology to lever the environment to do our bidding. But that should be kept apart of our economic ideology. Just like EV is better than ICE and it's externalities etc. economics will always trail the provisions of technology. It's also why industrial revolution started after slavery was abolished.

Greed, like many of our vices, including capitalism, stems from the fallacy of ownership. We are born with nothing, we can take nothing with when we pass, and everything we have here and now is just borrowed for a time, from the stars. It's up to us to chase the right ideas and principles to be good stewarts of the home we have been adopted into.

regards
JB
 

ajdelange

Well-known member
First Name
A. J.
Joined
Dec 8, 2019
Messages
2,953
Reaction score
3,145
Location
Virginia/Quebec
Vehicles
Tesla X LR+, Lexus SUV, Toyota SR5, Toyota Landcruiser
Occupation
EE (Retired)
Country flag
Please take this to an appropriate forum.
 

ajdelange

Well-known member
First Name
A. J.
Joined
Dec 8, 2019
Messages
2,953
Reaction score
3,145
Location
Virginia/Quebec
Vehicles
Tesla X LR+, Lexus SUV, Toyota SR5, Toyota Landcruiser
Occupation
EE (Retired)
Country flag
Rule of Thumb i.e. a simple, easily applicable rule that gets one into the ballpark without charts, tables, elaborate calculations..... "A pint's a pound the world around" is one. If you've bought a pint in a Pommy pub recently you quickly perceive that this refers to weight, not cost. "It takes 1% of an hour to add 1% to your SoC is another". "A yard is the distance from your (originally Henry's) nose to your thumb when your arm is extended" is a third. "The radius of a circle is 3 times it's diameter". "One °P is about 0.004 SG".
 
Last edited:

Crissa

Well-known member
First Name
Crissa
Joined
Jul 8, 2020
Messages
5,976
Reaction score
7,856
Location
Santa Cruz
Vehicles
2014 Zero S, 2013 Mazda 3
Country flag
Whenever I take a dollar to the bank, they convert it just fine.

Demand exceeding supply is but one micro-economic mechanic of inflation. It's not what people mean when they say 'inflation rate' or what's measured in macro economics.

If you want your MMT, you're going to have to accept that inflation is deflationary on debts, and that's a good thing.

-Crissa
 

JBee

Well-known member
First Name
JB
Joined
Nov 22, 2019
Messages
434
Reaction score
436
Location
6000
Vehicles
Cybertruck
Country flag
Rule of Thumb i.e. a simple, easily applicable rule that gets one into the ballpark without charts, tables, elaborate calculations..... "A pint's a pound the world around" is one. If you've bought a pint in a Pommy pub recently you quickly perceive that this refers to weight, not cost. "It takes 1% of an hour to add 1% to your SoC is another". "A yard is the distance from your (originally Henry's) nose to your thumb when your arm is extended" is a third. "The radius of a circle is 3 times it's diameter"
Right ok. I was already googling technical abbreviations lol. :p

So according to the chart/calc I did previously, with the charging rates on a TM we quickly get to a place where a v3 250kW SC is not enough, even if we don't improve the C rate because of the 4680 tabless design.

I had previously assumed a DM would be a little bit impacted, which appears to be the case if using a 120kWh pack. I'm assuming the following:

CT TMCT DMCT SM
Pack Size
200​
120​
100​
Range Highway (km)​
800 (500miles)​
480 (300miles)​
400 (250miles)​
Consumption Highway (kWh/km)​
0.250​
0.250​
0.250​

(The kWh/km might seem a bit low for the CT, but that's just taking the assumed pack size and range - A MX LR is 0.198)

CT DM Ultimate Charge Card.png


As you can imagine adding some C will start to increase charge times on a DM using a SC v3 over a 350kW version.

I suppose my question is becoming where exactly would one reasonably expect a car/truck charger kW rate to max out? Given that EV's will likely stay car sized, with incremental efficiency upgrades over time, and possibly some bigger steps in battery energy density which would reduce weight and rolling resistance, do you think it's likely we will see much over 350kW? Like a 500kW? I mean at some point adding charge at a faster rate will become faster than adding fuel. Is that necessary or even desired?

I'm assuming the larger MC will be for semis which will not be as common at first.
 
Last edited:

ajdelange

Well-known member
First Name
A. J.
Joined
Dec 8, 2019
Messages
2,953
Reaction score
3,145
Location
Virginia/Quebec
Vehicles
Tesla X LR+, Lexus SUV, Toyota SR5, Toyota Landcruiser
Occupation
EE (Retired)
Country flag
I'd guess that most people would be satified if they could pick up 80% in 10 minutes. That means r = 0.8/(10/60) = 4.8C. For a car with a 100 kWh battery that means 480 kW sustained. There is, I believe, a CharIN HPC500 standard. But 500 kW represents 5C and I don't think any battery will be happy at 5C for very long even in the low SoC region. If newer batteries can tolerate such high rate out to some relatively high SoC (50 - 60%) it might be possible to have average rates approaching 4.8C with 500 kW chargers.

Now if the vehicle is a truck with a 200 kW battery we need 960 kW. That's a lot and I don't see anyone building chargers of that size except at truck stops.

For now we are facing 250 kW and perhaps the best we can hope for in the CT is dual charging ports and some places where we can use 2 terminals. I used to hope for dual ports but as nothing about it has ever hit the rumor mill I've more or less given up on that idea.
 

JBee

Well-known member
First Name
JB
Joined
Nov 22, 2019
Messages
434
Reaction score
436
Location
6000
Vehicles
Cybertruck
Country flag
I'd guess that most people would be satified if they could pick up 80% in 10 minutes. That means r = 0.8/(10/60) = 4.8C. For a car with a 100 kWh battery that means 480 kW sustained. There is, I believe, a CharIN HPC500 standard. But 500 kW represents 5C and I don't think any battery will be happy at 5C for very long even in the low SoC region. If newer batteries can tolerate such high rate out to some relatively high SoC (50 - 60%) it might be possible to have average rates approaching 4.8C with 500 kW chargers.

For now we are facing 250 kW and perhaps the best we can hope for in the CT is dual charging ports and some places where we can use 2 terminals. I used to hope for dual ports but as nothing about it has ever hit the rumor mill I've more or less given up on that idea.
Hmm. I thought I saw Motor trend dual charging ports but I can't find it, just mentions double stack packs. I think they're the only ones that fot a good look but had a NDA on what info came out. Would be nice to have two on the TM as a stop gap solution until we get v4 SC.

So to limit our scope a bit lets say we have a 1000 person town with 100% EV. Lets assume 800 EV's per 1000 people, which is how many cars we have per capita here. Average km per year per vehicle say 15,000km. With 400km range avg per charge that means we get about 3.1 charges per month per vehicle, so less than one per week. For a town of 1000 that would be 2480 charges a month, or about 80 charges per day for the whole town.

If we want to charge all of those at we'd need 80x400km 32,000km at 250wh/km we'd need about 8MWh of energy plus losses per day. Not actually that bad, so about 333kW average load over 24h, but that depends on when everyone charges.

If we try to get all those through a a 4 stall v3 SC, at 1C we get 8hours and a 1MW connection. Pretty packed. But not everyone will charge with the SC. I'd say at least 60% of charging will be done at home or work, if not more, at a slower network rate, closer to that 300kW average again.

That would leave about 32 charges per 8 hour period, so about 1 charge per stall per hour that do a full 300km charge. Not to bad.

So you could say as a ROT per capita of a EV driving town you need 1kW (for SC) of network and generation capacity and 8kWh of energy for charging per day. (10kWh with losses?) Thats works out to about 2-3kW of solar per person to get those kWh together depending on location. Really not that bad at all.

Do you think that sounds about right?
 
Last edited:

ajdelange

Well-known member
First Name
A. J.
Joined
Dec 8, 2019
Messages
2,953
Reaction score
3,145
Location
Virginia/Quebec
Vehicles
Tesla X LR+, Lexus SUV, Toyota SR5, Toyota Landcruiser
Occupation
EE (Retired)
Country flag
There is a bit more to the dual charging ports that meets the eye. The battery pack would probably have to be split for charging, one half to each port. This, of course, is a neat solution to faster charging with out having to go to 800 V chargers. It would be of great benefit to people charging at home too.
So to limit our scope a bit lets say we have a 1000 person town with 100% EV. Lets assume 800 EV's per 1000 people, which is how many cars we have per capita here. Average km per year per vehicle say 15,000km. With 400km range avg per charge that means we get about 3.1 charges per month per vehicle, so less than one per week. For a town of 1000 that would be 2480 charges a month, or about 80 charges per day for the whole town.
The demand is going to depend on the Wh/mi of the vehicles involved. If everyone drove BEV that consumed 250 wh/mi obviously the demand would be half what it would be if they all drove 450 Wh/mi CT's. Let's suppose the population were split half and half so the average consumption would be 350. Taking your 15,000 km as average that's 9,000 mile with 800 vehicles we'd have an annual demand of .350*9000*800 = 2.52e+06 kWh/yr which is 6899.38 kWh/da. = 287 kWh/hr

If we want to charge ...but that depends on when everyone charges.

...I'd say at least 60% of charging will be done at home or work,...

The ROT is that 80 - 85% of charging is done at home. That comes off the SC load but it does not come off the utility's supply requirement. This ostensibly leaves only 60 kW average load for supercharging but, as you note, people do not supercharge uniformly throughout the day nor is supercharging normally done by the people that live near the superchargers nor, when people want to supercharge do they want to do it at the average rate. This get's us back to the concept of crest or load factor. How much charging will people do on Bangtail Muster Day as opposed to the average Thursday? How many people charge at 3AM?

That would leave about 32 charges per 8 hour period, so about 1 charge per stall per hour that do a full 300km charge. Not to bad.

So you could say as a ROT per capita of a EV driving town you need 1kW (for SC) of network and generation capacity and 8kWh of energy for charging per day. (10kWh with losses?) Thats works out to about 2-3kW of solar per person to get those kWh together depending on location. Really not that bad at all.

Do you think that sounds about right?
You calculated 333 kW average for charging and I got 287. For 1000 people that's .333 to .287 kW for charging. So those are our per capita charging estimates. These don't become ROTs until we have some evidence that they are typical. They are, at this point, more WAGs than ROTs.

I would think the way to work this problem is to look at your town's utilization and then try to figure what additional requirement BEVs might impose. I do know that mine takes 6.9% of my electric consumption. But then my electric consumption is not modest as I heat with it in winter and cool with it in summer.
 

JBee

Well-known member
First Name
JB
Joined
Nov 22, 2019
Messages
434
Reaction score
436
Location
6000
Vehicles
Cybertruck
Country flag
There is a bit more to the dual charging ports that meets the eye. The battery pack would probably have to be split for charging, one half to each port. This, of course, is a neat solution to faster charging with out having to go to 800 V chargers. It would be of great benefit to people charging at home too.
The demand is going to depend on the Wh/mi of the vehicles involved. If everyone drove BEV that consumed 250 wh/mi obviously the demand would be half what it would be if they all drove 450 Wh/mi CT's. Let's suppose the population were split half and half so the average consumption would be 350. Taking your 15,000 km as average that's 9,000 mile with 800 vehicles we'd have an annual demand of .350*9000*800 = 2.52e+06 kWh/yr which is 6899.38 kWh/da. = 287 kWh/hr
Ok so my 8MWh per day 333kW rating was a bit more, probably because I used CT wh/km instead of miles.

But we're in the same ballpark. Thats good. Technically you could fit 2-3 kW of solar on a CT with a custom expandable roof. I already have a simple design for that.

So given we have 800 EVs in town, lets say worst case half are driving in the same period of the day. Then of the rest lets say 25% are parked and connected to a 10kW bi-directional V2G charger. Thats within a househol connection budget without an upgrade (42A). That would be around 200 vehicles x 10kW so 2MW of charge capacity which is enough to run 8x 250kW SC stalls simultaneously.

If as above we assume that only 40% of cars charge at a SC, we end up with 3.2MWh of energy required in the same period that only 25% of EVs are connected to a V2G. So thats 3.2MWh/200=16kWh of battery cycling (plus losses) per day to keep the SC chargers powered.

Not bad at all. In ballpark figures that validates the viability of using V2G to power SC charging in small capacity grids. Technically that scales up and down with population too. Is there something we missed?
 
Advertisement

 
Advertisement
Top